Trial Discussion Thread #20 - 14.04.08, Day 18

[nastasya]

So not many hearts or minds have been changed by Oscar's testimony. I suspect that those who already found him guilty would be smearing him no matter how he came across on the stand.

But I think the state failed to present a convincing case for premeditated murder anyway.

I think you're 100% wrong.

I think a lot of people see the killer as an even more manipulative, self-serving liar than before.

And walking to get a gun, moving towards the victim, yelling at the victim and then shooting a the victim after the victim retreated IS the definition of premeditated murder.

That's why the killer is testifying to try to convince the judge his admitted killing of the victim is not a violation of the law.

 

[kittychi]

Firstly, I apologise for turning up late to the party and probably trying to start a conversation which everyone else has already had, but i was at work from just after 7am to 6.30pm and am just too weary to read through the thread.

In a brief respite at work I was reading some of the transcript and saw something which really made me :maddening:

In his first affidavit OP made no mention whatsoever of speaking to Reeva after they both retired to bed until he shouted "get out of my house" at the 'intruders' and "Call the police" to Reeva.

In the second statement at the beginning of the trial he suddenly claimed that he had just spoken to Reeva before he fetched the fans in and then made no mention of speaking again until the shouting as above.

All of a sudden in his testimony today he apparently whispered "Reeva call the police " when he came in with the fans and heard the noise.

As soon as I read that, I thought "i bet his defence team read the web to see what holes people are picking in his account and then try to amend his testimony to fix them"

Why didn't he mention this whisper before? Because it never happened in my view. Just another lie and obfuscation to try and cover his back.

I had already wondered whether the sleuths on here and elsewhere on the web might be helping his defence team by pointing out where his account is weak and therefore where they need to invent stuff to plug the gaps. I now think this may well be the case.

Just my own opinion.

Interesting thought. I hope we are helping the judge too

It really seems suspect to me, too, that when the event is fresh in his mind, he writes a complete statement. Then over a YEAR later he changes it in several places. WTH??? I had thought earlier that he really put himself into a box with that BH affidavit and he is trying to crawl out of it now.

ETA: I hope Nel will ask for details regarding the changes.

 

[kittychi]

:lookingitup:

Man

:silly:

 

[nastasya]

I'm absolutely crushed for him and Reeva. I find the thought of each morning's trial horrific, so good only knows how he feels.

I too think it's destroyed him. He's a mess :-(

What's that phrase?
"Truth is stranger than fiction".

T'is indeed applicable here IMO :-(

What is the "it" that has destroyed him?

His decision to shoot four times at an occupied toilet stall is what destroyed Reeva's life, not his. He's still free to enjoy his life.

It's not that strange. He's a self-indulgent, quick-tempered, gun-loving, irresponsible punk according to the testimony.

 

[kittychi]

IMO
If Nel continues with his newly adopted "Pit Bull Poodle" style when he cross examines OP... he will make himself look like more of a jerk and achieve nothing. Perhaps even generate some extra sympathy for OP.

It would be nice if the Judge could step in and put a halt to all this? In the same way a Ref steps in to stop a boxing match.

I see no way that Nel can disprove OP's version (beyond reasonable doubt) All the evidence to date and more to come will be irrelevant. What does need to be argued/debated is SA law and how it applies, and of course the penalty in this specific set of circumstances. That should involve legal submissions to the Judge by lawyers on both sides. I think a large amount of compassion for OP should be applied. The apparent HATE I find unpleasant to read.

The firearms charges always were a blatant ploy to introduce inadmissible evidence. I think the Judge should dismiss them for that reason alone. Besides.. the only charge that has any validity is the Restaurant thing, and I imagine that would be accepted as an accident, warranting a fine if anything.

ALL IMO of course.
:tyou:

BBM1 Key word: "reasonable."

BBM2 Speaking of "blatant ploys:" :crying:

 

[TorisMom003]

Here's the details regarding the Roux/Merwe sound test discussion :-

Roux tells van der Merwe why she heard noises in February this year. 'We did tests of a man and woman screaming as loud as they can in the bedroom to determine how far sound would travel at 2 to 3 in the morning. What's interesting is that you could not hear the screaming.'

Van der Merwe: 'I had no idea where the voice was coming from... I was scared to walk around the other side of the building.'

And yet Mrs. Stipp did hear the defense tests screams. And since Roux has no problem lying to the witnesses on the stand in order to try and get them to agree with him, I do not believe him when he states that a man AND a woman was screaming for the test. Perhaps if Roux was more honest in a court of law then I could believe what he claims.

MOO

 

[Val1]

I saw in his testimony today that he said he heard a noise that made him believe that the door was opening/was about to be opened when he shot. Has he said this before? Because I dont recall that. Seems a bit coincidental to the SA case of Mdunge, the chap that shot his wife in the bathroom thinking she was an intruder.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Man-who-shot-wife-in-error-can-sympathise-with-Oscar-20140407

ETA he got 8 yrs suspended but a condition was that her family had to agree to the culpable homicide plea and the sentence, which they did, so they were obviously supportive. I dont think the Steenkamps would agree to something like that.

bbm Pretty much word for word.

He thought that a burglar was trying to get into the house.

'Fearful of his life'

“The accused was fearful of his life and grabbed the gun that he keeps in his bedside pedestal drawer at night for protection from unwanted intruders in his home.

“The accused then made his way to the entrance door of the room and could hear the noise coming from the bathroom.

“The accused then slowly made his way to the bathroom door to investigate the noise, thinking that the burglar was hiding in the bathroom.

“As the accused reached the bathroom door, the bathroom door suddenly slid open and the accused, afraid for his life, panicked at being startled by the door suddenly opening and he fired a shot from his gun at the person who opened the door.

“After the accused had discharged the shot he realised that it was his wife that he had shot, thinking she was a burglar, it was said in Mdunge’s plea statement.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Kittychi: When I first glanced at the above emoticon I thought the green thing was a little green bucket! Hah!

 

[TorisMom003]

So much for the assurance that if OP lied on the stand that he would be called out for it here. OP is now on his third version of events for that morning but I guess the excuse will be that he is simply adding to what he stated in his bail application statement and his plea statement instead of changing anything. :sigh:

 

[Gryffindor]

I think it's mainly going to be similar expert witnesses to counter the PT's claims.

There could well be closer neighbours, as it just seems so unusual for a PT to have selected witnesses from so far away. Something doesn't sit right with me on that.

There can't be any character witnesses, so friends etc won't be required.

It's really hard to guess, because some evidence they won't be disputing - the ballistics have probably got the shot angle correct as both parties agree that OP was on stumps. The distance from the door will probably be claimed as the back wall, so they may want an expert to stress this possibility.

I'll have a good think, as I suspect OP's gonna be there for quite a while yet.

:smile:

Thanks Steve. Do you think PT don't want to entertain closer neighbours as they may have claimed "didn't hear", "wasn't clear to hear" or that they're quite pally with Oscar so thought it was pointless calling them?

i.e.. wouldn't have anything of value to add?

 

[minor4th]

So then why did he tell security that he was fine, while Reeva was still breathing and needed urgent assistance?

We've discussed this so many times.

Think back through all the testimony of those who were on the scene that night and how they described Oscar.

 

[Rumpole]

BBM1 Key word: "reasonable."

BBM2 Speaking of "blatant ploys:" :crying:

I do agree totally.

REASONABLE is an essential part of the old "Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" Golden thread that runs through our common judicial system.
One can not simply propose some outlandish alternative explanation that can not be tested.

There is nothing outlandish about OP's version, the State evidence, taken as a whole agrees with it. I personally think OP's version is essentially true, but that is not required at all. All that is required is that the State can not discredit it as an alternative to their own Prosecution Theory of events. (That is what reasonable doubt is)

The burden placed on the State is a difficult standard to achieve... intentionally so. We as a society have decided that it is abhorrent to convict an innocent man, and so we are prepared to let some guilty men go free to lessen the chance of that happening. So we place this high stanard on the State... to PROVE beyond reasonable doubt.

This case is not some "grey area" case where the doubt is borderline. There is clearly HUGE doubt that the State's version is true. In fact I would go so far as to say the the facts of this case completely DISPROVE the State's case. (Refer to my earlier posts about time line of events)
----------------------------------
The blatant ploy thing... with crying smiley....meaning Oscar? I don't agree.

I am a skeptic, a cynic. More likely to be annoyed by people who "turn on the water works"

I am convinced that the emotion I hear from OP is genuine. (not a ploy)

It was heart-wrenching to listen to.....

 

[minor4th]

So much for the assurance that if OP lied on the stand that he would be called out for it here. OP is now on his third version of events for that morning but I guess the excuse will be that he is simply adding to what he stated in his bail application statement and his plea statement instead of changing anything. :sigh:

Exactly what is the lie?

Whatever seeming inconsistencies there are, you can bet Nel won't let them slide. He's not even finished with direct examination.

If he's lying and cannot explain things it should be obvious during cross examination.

After hearing him today, I find his account more credible than I ever have.

 

[TorisMom003]

For some reason every time I heard OP pass the blame onto someone else today during his testimony I thought of the following comic:

link for comic
http://thecomicssection.blogspot.com/2010/11/family-circus-not-me.html

 

[dianebowen]

When my son was little, he was rough housing with friends, and broke his arm, and it was a very painful break. ALL I COULD THINK ABOUT , was how to best get him medical care. I was trying to decide between driving to hospital or waiting for an ambulance, and that was my entire focus, medical care. I was on the phone within seconds, and barking orders at others immediately. We opted for ambulance but we were outside at the curb, with ice and pressure applied, ready to go.

So it really bothers me that there is so much confusion about the ambulance. If he was in fact going to take her himself, why did he wave off security and say he was 'fine?' There seemed to be so much lag time between his shots, and the arrival of any medical help. That really niggles at me.

Futile (due to her condition) or not, a gut reaction in this case, as Oscar described it, would have been to seek immediate "emergency responders."

 

[minor4th]

What if Reeva started the "argument" that 1 witness said were male and female voices?

There haven't been any witnesses who heard a male and female arguing

 

[MeeBee]

Exactly what is the lie?

Whatever seeming inconsistencies there are, you can bet Nel won't let them slide. He's not even finished with direct examination.

If he's lying and cannot explain things it should be obvious during cross examination.

After hearing him today, I find his account more credible than I ever have.

So do I. And his story hasn't changed. From day one. That is key.

 

[clearskies1]

Hello all, I'm a first time poster. Forgive me if my question is a bit off topic -- was OP's first affidavit given for the purpose of getting out on bail? I don't understand how he could submit that affidavit without the State having an opportunity to cross-examine him at the time. Even without cross-exam, it's obviously a risky thing for a defendant to do -- boxing yourself in before hearing the evidence against you.

MOO

 

[turaj]

I really think it is high time for Milady to address the court regarding the outbursts from the Pistorius family...it seems odd that Reeva's family can contain themselves but the Pistorius family cannot.And Roux needs to be warned to get his client under control. I don't know what you do with a guy like OP but they simply cannot stop everytime he cries, pucks or gets sweaty. What a joke. I don't think he will make it through with Nell...probably have to carry him away. While I think he wants the effect I think he is just a mess and no matter what happens to him I think he will never ever enjoy anything in life again. He may be in worse shape just out on his own. Is his dad in the courtroom...I don't see him front and center...mostly the uncle, sister etc.

 

[nastasya]

Yep. He was whispering to Reeva to 'get down on the floor and to call police' but didn't notice she hadn't whispered back 'Okay'... and how close was he that he could whisper to her but still not realise she wasn't in bed?? Seriously!

Notice how he claims to have told Reeva to call the police more than once, but, lo and behold, he killed Reeva and never called the police.

Why?